What really eats me up... Topic

But the underlying concept is the same. Person 1 pays "X" for something. Person 2 is expected to pay "X+Y" for the same something "because they can afford it".

In the case of taxes, the logical thing is those who earn more should pay more. I'm advocating tax rates should be based upon what people earn (as they are), and should increase based upon how much is earned, with those who earn more paying a greater percentage than those who do not (which is - sort of - the way things are). However, I want to eliminate anything that can reduce those tax rates artificially and result in them paying less than the prescribed amount.

No one is advocating people pay more for consumer commodities or anything else "because they can afford to". That's now how the economy functions.

Taxes are a different story. Income taxes are levied based upon income, which is essentially the same as making people pay what "they can afford to" pay. It simply needs to be adjusted so that the wealthy pay a greater percentage, the lower classes pay next to zero, and there is no way for anyone to find loop holes, deductions, or other such nonsense to get out of their rightful tax rate.

Bad luck? **** NO. That gives lazy people an excuse for their laziness.

First, this tells me you've never truly had enough bad luck to put you into a circumstance such as those who would need help from government programs. If you had, you wouldn't feel this way.

Second, not everyone who has bad luck is lazy or needs an excuse for being lazy. In the same way, not everyone who has good luck and gets rich because of it deserves to be praised for working hard when that may not be the case at all. Pull your head out of the sand and think and you might find the world isn't as black and white as you previously thought.

Society as a whole benefits from those programs. Sorry you have to pay an additional 3.9% in taxes on the dollars earned over $250,000.

I agree society benefits from these programs - the statistics are there to support this (although I'm not going to go find them all to show you that - you can do it on your own if you'd like).

As for those making more than $250,000, 3.9 percent as an increase isn't a big deal because they will probably find a loop hole or declare a deduction or hide their money and not end up paying it anyway.

Posted by moy23 on 11/14/2012 12:37:00 PM (view original):all people are created equal....

.... until they make too much money.

what a shame :(

So many directions I could go with this...put 20 seconds up on the board:

All people are created equal...unless their income comes from their labor and not investments

All people are created equal...until they lose health coverage

All people are created equal...until they make too much money...then they are WAY better than everyone else and everything they earned was solely due to their hard work and smarts and had nothing to do with anyone else and they shouldn't be bothered with our little people problems and they shouldn't have to pay taxes, in fact, we should pay them taxes for their generous job creation-awesome-ness.

Wouldn't America be better if it was more like the animal kingdom? The weak are weeded out. You don't see a pack of wolves carrying the old, crippled wolf around and making sure he gets an equal portion of the deer they killed.

And, if your response is "Well, wolves are mean", butterflies don't do it either.

First, this tells me you've never truly had enough bad luck to put you into a circumstance such as those who would need help from government programs. If you had, you wouldn't feel this way.

Funny how you assume this. Maybe I was out of work, with two kids (and a wife) to feed, and I stomped around to multiple job fairs and temp agencies and four-interviews-in-a-day.... and GOT A JOB. I got unemployment (which was essentially my own money) for four months. But I looked for a job EVERY ******* DAY.

Do you really think that ALL of your "bad luck" victims are busting their *** to get a job? Let's give some of them the benefit of the doubt and say 50% are actually actively searching for a job, and are willing to work for $10-15/hour. That means that 50% of those benefits (and handouts) are going to people that have NO INTENTION of working. Why should they be GIVEN anything?

All people are created equal...until they make too much money...then they are WAY better than everyone else and everything they earned was solely due to their hard work and smarts and had nothing to do with anyone else and they shouldn't be bothered with our little people problems and they shouldn't have to pay taxes, in fact, we should pay them taxes for their generous job creation-awesome-ness.

This statement - as the sarcasm I'm sure it was intended to be - is one of the BEST things I have ever read regrading this topic.

Some people act like this statement is the truth, but it's a complete lie.

Inherent truths:

No one is better than anyone because of the money they make or have.

Many people earn or have a lot of money and did not work hard for it or deserve it.

Rich people aren't entitled to ignore the rest of society, especially in terms of taxes.

Creating jobs for others doesn't mean you are a good person or are entitled to anything.

Funny how you assume this.

It's not an assumption. If you have ever absolutely needed to rely on government programs, there is no way in h*** you make the statement you made - unless you're either incredibly ignorant or incredibly stupid and ungrateful.

Maybe I was out of work, with two kids (and a wife) to feed, and I stomped around to multiple job fairs and temp agencies and four-interviews-in-a-day.... and GOT A JOB. I got unemployment (which was essentially my own money) for four months. But I looked for a job EVERY ******* DAY.

Lots of people look for jobs every day. Many get them; some do not. Regardless, with your attitude about government aid, you haven't struggled to the level where you'd need it (rather than just "your own money" from unemployment), because if you had you either wouldn't have this attitude or you'd be among the most ungrateful people on the earth.

Let's give some of them the benefit of the doubt and say 50% are actually actively searching for a job, and are willing to work for $10-15/hour.

I think I'd be hard pressed to find very many people who are currently unemployed who wouldn't work for $10-15 per hour, especially if it's full time with benefits. In fact, I know a number of people who have part time jobs or without benefits or who make less than $10 per hour who would LOVE to take those jobs if you were offering them, and those people are just people I personally know.

One of my old college friends makes $7.50 per hour working at a fast food place part time. He's looking for jobs every single day and can't find anything despite the fact that he has a college degree. Just a wild guess, but he'd grab a $10 per hour full time position in a heartbeat.

It simply needs to be adjusted so that the wealthy pay a greater percentage, the lower classes pay next to zero, and there is no way for anyone to find loop holes, deductions, or other such nonsense to get out of their rightful tax rate.

Bis, you still haven't said anything new and still haven't justified any of your assertions.

You want the rich to "pay their fair share", but won't define what it is. You want them to pay more than they do now, but won't even hint at how much more. You can't show that raising their tax rates will even accomplish what you want it to (actually I'm not quite sure what you want it to accomplish), whereas I can show you tax tables (reference that other thread I brought up) that show it's more likely that the rich will not only pay less of the burden, but that treasury revenues would go down (since the opposite has been true every time broad based tax cuts are enacted - something I am not advocating BTW).

Furthermore, you haven't shown how taking more from the "rich" will help the economy, especially since those people are generally the ones who create and provide the jobs in the first place.

You seem to assume, based on the bulk of your posts, that there is only one solution to help the needy - government programs. That simply isn't true.

Lastly, you fail to demonstrate that government has any moral authority to coerce anyone to help their neighbor. I think it's a moral obligation, so I believe in helping our needy neighbors, just not through the ultimate act of ceding control of this to a government that is becoming more and more drunk on its own power.

As for constitutionally necessary programs, I believe the rich should pay more of the burden (they do already). Those at the bottom should pay less (they already pay next to nothing).

However, I want to eliminate anything that can reduce those tax rates artificially and result in them paying less than the prescribed amount.

Here is one point where I believe we can find at least a small chunk common ground. But I'm sure we diverge drastically on how that would be accomplished...

I don't know anyone who disputes this or who is agruing this in this thread. Calling something an "inherent truth" implies it needs no support, which I'd probably agree with.

Many people earn or have a lot of money and did not work hard for it or deserve it.

Since you are using this statement in support of you tax argument, I'd ask you for some context: how many is "many". What percentage of wealthy individuals (as defined by our fearless leaders) are thos who did not work for it? What percentage don't "deserve it"? Why wouldn't they "deserve it"?

Rich people aren't entitled to ignore the rest of society, especially in terms of taxes.

The are entitled to use whatever rules are in place regarding their taxes as anyone else. This country is based on freedom, and yes, that includes those evil rich guys. They are free to ignore those in need if they wish. [Hint: a vast majority of those don't wish to ignore the needy].

You make a lot of assumptions about rich people. I'd ask you to back them up. Especially with respect to helping the needy. I know several rich people who help others in a non-photo-op manner. They go about their business. They give time and resources to charities and the needy - and they do so without looking for recongnition from the folks that our leaders are convincing to hate them. Without the wealthy, or by confiscating money they earn, you actually run the risk of reducing the amount of resources that could actually really help.?

You are the one asserting that the rich should pay more. You are the one who is continually failing to provide any support to your assertions.

Posted by moy23 on 11/14/2012 12:37:00 PM (view original):all people are created equal....

.... until they make too much money.

what a shame :(

So many directions I could go with this...put 20 seconds up on the board:

All people are created equal...unless their income comes from their labor and not investments

All people are created equal...until they lose health coverage

All people are created equal...until they make too much money...then they are WAY better than everyone else and everything they earned was solely due to their hard work and smarts and had nothing to do with anyone else and they shouldn't be bothered with our little people problems and they shouldn't have to pay taxes, in fact, we should pay them taxes for their generous job creation-awesome-ness.

equal percentage of taxes for 'everyone'.... even the poor. that's equal. 'equal' is objective. you are referring to 'fair' which is subjective....or opinion based.

I actually use the concept of "fair' in one of the training classes I facilitiate (MBTI)

To a THINKING person, fair means you set a standard, and then you apply it to people. This removes subjectivity and sets an objective standard. A flat tax on all earnings (no loopholes) would be an example of how a THINKING preference would handle taxes.

To a FEELING person, fair means every individual situation is considered, regardless of any standard. This removes objectivity and sets a subjective standard. A graduated tax system where the rich pay proportionately more would be an example of how a FEELING preference would handle taxes.

Both think their way is "fair". And they're about as opposite as possible.